On 2011-07-06 23:31, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 07:25, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
No, I just wanted to show you that you can't really tell if someone retraces
a removed way by looking at an aerial imagery, by looking at the current OSM
map or by just moving
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and
Probably OT:
On 2011-07-07 02:25, John Smith wrote:
How many painters die poor?
What about famous composers?
Economics became an issue much later.
So artists have a human right to be rich?
There are many reasons why painters or composers die poor (people don't
like their work and don't
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 16:16, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
That's why I prefer PD because I believe there is no protection and so why
bother about licenses at all?
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
On 7 July 2011 16:40, Andreas Perstinger andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
So artists have a human right to be rich?
Glad you took my point so far out of context, someone claimed that
copyright existed for economic reasons.
___
legal-talk mailing list
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
The forkers, as I like to call them, are driven by all kinds of
motivations, the most
On 7 July 2011 16:58, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
While they started out wishing OSM to suffer the least possible damage,
their ego now forces them to demand the most rigid - even absurd - data
deletion policies for the license change lest they look like idiots for
starting a fork
Frederik, I'm fully aware of JS motives and tactics and normally avoid
getting sucked in to his endless threads.
But it was 2 am and I was just finishing tax returns and associated
book keeping. John Smith is a tiny bit more entertaining than that and I
needed a short break :-)
Simon
Am
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 7:58 AM, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
Simon,
Andreas,
all,
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the pseudonym of
John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of time
building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
The forkers, as
+1
Frederik has not shown much respect for any argument
nor to anyone that disagrees with the future commercialisation
of OSM. (with that I means making OSM optimally fit for commercial use;
disregarding the open principles that OSM started with:
leaving out the Share Alike principle)
On 2011-07-07 08:58, Frederik Ramm wrote:
when discussing these things with the person who goes by the
pseudonym of John Smith, keep in mind that he is spending a lot of
time building/supporting an OpenStreetMap fork.
I know who John Smith and his fellows are and I even read their
On 2011-07-07 08:39, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:16 AM, Andreas Perstinger
No (see above). But I think it's more a question of morality and adhering to
community guidelines. Legally I don't see any problems using informations
from any map (or aerial imagery).
But using
On 2011-07-07 09:35, 80n wrote:
Data loss is your problem not ours. I see people doing thought experiments
about how they can get around the wishes of contributors who have, in good
faith, provided their content under the CC license. Those people who have
not agreed to the CT have not
On 2011-07-07 08:48, Anthony wrote:
On Thu, Jul 7, 2011 at 2:45 AM, Andreas Perstinger
andreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
On 2011-07-07 08:24, John Smith wrote:
Wouldn't it be great if we could all wish away inconvenient laws like
that, however morality often drives laws and they tend seem
On 07/07/2011 07:41, Anthony wrote:
Thanks Toby. I'm forwarding this to Dave Fox, who is the one who
actually asked the question.
It follows pretty naturally out of the database schema. Anything that
modifies the ways, way_tags or way_nodes tables creates a new version
of the way. Things
On 2011-07-07 19:55, John Smith wrote:
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstingerandreas.perstin...@gmx.net wrote:
But that doesn't mean that their content won't show up in a future ODBL
map. I've noticed that John Smith doesn't want to answer my question, but
perhaps you would: How far away
+1
Gert
-Oorspronkelijk bericht-
Van: John Smith [mailto:deltafoxtrot...@gmail.com]
Verzonden: donderdag 7 juli 2011 19:55
Aan: Licensing and other legal discussions.
Onderwerp: Re: [OSM-legal-talk] license change effect on un-tagged nodes
On 7 July 2011 21:49, Andreas Perstinger
On 07/07/11 20:14, ce-test, qualified testing bv - Gert Gremmen wrote:
+1
/2
___
legal-talk mailing list
legal-talk@openstreetmap.org
http://lists.openstreetmap.org/listinfo/legal-talk
On 16 June 2011 21:08, Frederik Ramm frede...@remote.org wrote:
On 06/16/11 12:31, Dermot McNally wrote:
Not quite, based on what Richard is saying. It would allow future
relicensing but only if the new licence remained compatible with the
terms seen to be required by the OS (currently
19 matches
Mail list logo
